cross-cultural creativity conceptualization and propositions for global new product development

Cross-Cultural Creativity: Conceptualization and Propositionsfor Global New Product DevelopmentEsi Abbam Elliot and Cheryl Nakata

In todays global business environment, where multinational companies are pressed to increase revenues in order tosurvive, creativity may hold the key to ensuring their new product development (NPD) efforts lead to innovations withworldwide appeal, such as Apples iPad and Gillettes Fusion Razor. To leverage creativity for effective global NPD,businesses want to know how cultures differ in their concepts of creativity and the impact of those differences onapproaches to developing new products. Because global new products are increasingly developed in, by, and formultiple cultures, a particular need is for a culturally reflective understanding, or conceptualization, of creativity.While creativity is believed to be culturally tied, the dominant framework of creativity used in business and managementassumes that creativity is culturally indifferent or insensitive. This knowledge gap is addressed by studying the role ofcreativity in NPD practices in a cross-cultural or global context.

The study begins by first developing a culturally anchored conceptualization of creativity. Called cross-culturalcreativity, the concept draws on creativity insights from the field of art and aesthetics. The concept specifies two modesof creativity, neither of which is superior to the other, called the spontaneous or S route and the divergent or D route.The S route emphasizes adaptiveness, processes, intuitiveness, and metamorphism, while the D route focuses ondisruptiveness, results, rationality, and literalism. Next, this new concept is applied to NPD by positing how creativityin distinct cultures may shape NPD practices, as illustrated by Japanese and U.S. firms. Research propositions areformulated to capture these patterns, and thereafter, theoretical and practical implications of the framework andpropositions are discussed. The implications center on global NPD, which is a complex enterprise involving typicallymore than one culture to design and develop new products for several geographic markets. The study is of interest toresearchers needing a globally situated, culturally attached framework of creativity for international NPD studies, andmanagers seeking to exploit creativity in multinational and multicultural innovation projects.

C reativity is of growing interest to researchersand practitioners of global new product devel-opment (NPD) (Vissers and Dankbaar, 2002).This interest stems from observations that creativity inglobal firms leads to successful new products. Amongcompanies with international reach known for their cre-ative impulses and impactful new products are Apple,Nintendo, and Procter & Gamble (Business Week, 2008).Apple has been lauded for inventive, eye-appealing elec-tronic devices from iPads to iPhones, which have grabbedthe imagination as well as pocketbooks of consumersglobally. Nintendo has developed Wii, the worlds best-selling console that enables interactive sensory-basedgame-playing for tennis, bowling, and many popular

sports. Procter & Gamble has introduced a bevy of newhousehold items, such as a Tide detergent specially for-mulated to keep clothes like new, generating strongsales in more than a hundred countries. In todays inten-sively competitive business environment, where multina-tional companies are pressed to grow revenues in order tosurvive, creativity may hold the key to ensuring NPDefforts lead to innovations with worldwide appeal.

The notion that creativity is tied to NPD is not new. Ithas long been conjectured that creativity enhances NPDby providing the ideas, motivations, and perspectives forcomplex innovation endeavors (Von Krogh, Nonaka, andManfried, 2001. Although businesses would want toleverage creativity for effective global NPD, they mayhave little knowledge to guide their efforts. Based on alater review of the innovation and marketing literatures, itappears that no prior research has been conducted on thecreativityNPD relationship in an international context.Importantly, that review reveals that country settingaffects NPD processes and outcomes, with national

Address correspondence to: Esi Abbam Elliot, Suffolk University,Sawyer School of Business, Marketing Department, Sawyer Building, 73Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02108. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel:(773) 991-0160.

The two authors contributed equally to this paper.

J PROD INNOV MANAG 2013;30(S1):110125 2013 Product Development & Management AssociationDOI: 10.1111/jpim.12066

Carlos

Carlos

CarlosHighlight

culture playing an especially prominent role (Nakata andSivakumar, 1996; Song and Parry, 1997a, 1997b; Song,Xie, and Dyer, 2000). Meta-analyses of NPD and mar-keting studies conclude that innovation practices andresults are not geographically neutral but culturally con-tingent (Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Kirca,Jayachandran, and Bearden, 2005).

To address the above knowledge gap, the intersectionof culture, creativity, and NPD is studied in this paper.The specific purpose is to understand the influence ofcreativity on NPD practices in a cross-cultural or globalcontext. This study is conducted by first reviewing thecreativity literature within and outside the fields of NPDand marketing. Next, a new culturally anchored concep-tualization of creativity is proposed. Called cross-culturalcreativity, the concept draws on the field of art and aes-thetics for perspectives on creativity. Thereafter, thisconcept, along with knowledge on international innova-tion, is used to posit how cross-cultural creativity affectsNPD practices as illustrated by Japan and the UnitedStates. These insights are captured as research proposi-tions. As discussed by Yadav (2010), theoretical workthat brings together previously unconnected fields to gen-erate new concepts is crucial for the advancement ofknowledge. Last, the managerial and research implica-tions of cross-cultural creativity and its role in NPD arediscussed. The study will be of interest to researchersneeding a globally situated and culturally relevant con-ceptualization of creativity for NPD studies, as well asmanagers seeking to exploit creativity in multinationaland multicultural innovation projects.

Literature Review

For this study, the relevant extant works are creativitystudies within the NPD and marketing domains and thoseoutside, especially from the field of art and aesthetics.Within NPD and marketing, creativity has been of long-standing interest, but has often been conceived as syn-onymous with innovation itself (Sundgren and Styhre,2007). Clearer articulations disentangle the two con-structs by framing creativity as an antecedent or precursorto innovation. More particularly, creativity is said to be aprocess or ability that propels and generates new ideas,while innovation is the development and implementationof those ideas (Amabile, 1988; Ancona, 1987; Rogers,1983). This distinction is adopted so as not to confusecreativity with innovation, and for consistency withcurrent understanding that creativity leads or is an inputto NPD, or innovation, activities (Amabile, 1988; Im andWorkman, 2004).

Curiously, in the NPD and marketing literatures, cre-ativity has been mainly framed as an outcome; in otherwords, the focus has been on what produces creativityrather than how creativity produces innovations.Moorman and Miner (1997) examined how organiza-tional memory enhances the creativity of new products;Zhou and George (2003) investigated the routes by whichemotionally intelligent leaders trigger the creativity ofindividuals working on NPD projects; Tu (2009) probedthe impact of contextual factors such as organizationalcontrol in the development of new product team creativ-ity; Griffith-Hemans and Grover (2006) explored whetherindividual and firm characteristics determine the creativ-ity of ideas later developed into new products; andLeenders, van Engelen, and Kratzer (2007) looked at theinfluences of design methods and communications pat-terns on the creative performance of NPD teams. Whileilluminating, these studies indicate that knowledge oncreativity as a driver of innovation is relatively nascent,underscoring the need for this study.

The potential role of culture in creativity appearsneglected in the NPD and marketing literatures. The mostwidely adopted conceptualization of creativity in NPDresearch is that of Teresa Amabile (Andrews and Smith,1996; Im and Workman, 2004; Sethi, Smith, and Park,2001). According to Amabile (1996, p. 35), a product orresponse will be judged as creative to the extent that . . .it is both novel and appropriate, useful, correct or a valu-able response to the task at hand . . . In short, creativityis the degree to which an outcome is original and practi-cal. This definition has shed light on a heretofore ambigu-ous notion (Slater, 1991; Stewart and Bennett, 1991).

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Dr. Esi Abbam Elliot is an assistant professor of marketing at SuffolkUniversity. Her research interests are in cocreation creativity, emergingmarkets, and innovation. She has published her studies in Journal ofBusiness Research, and presented them at the American MarketingAssociation, Association for Consumer Research, and the Academy ofInternational Business conferences.

Dr. Cheryl Nakata is a professor of marketing & international businessat the University of Illinois at Chicago. She received her Ph.D. inmarketing at the University of Illinois at Chicago and master of man-agement at Northwestern University. Her research interests are inculture, innovation, marketing strategy, and global markets, includingbase of the pyramid. Her studies have appeared in Journal of Market-ing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and Journal ofInternational Business Studies, among others, and have won best paperawards from the American Marketing Association and the Academy ofMarketing Science. She is on the editorial board of four academicjournals, and was PDMA Vice President of Academic Affairs from2010 to 2012.

CROSS-CULTURAL CREATIVITY J PROD INNOV MANAG 1112013;30(S1):110125

Carlos

Carlos

Nonetheless, it emerged from research on U.S. organiza-tions (Amabile, 1983, 1996), and may therefore not beuniversally descriptive. Indicative of its limited applica-bility is a recent creativity study demonstrating that Japa-nese, Chinese, and North Americans differ greatly in theirvaluations of novelty and appropriateness, the twodimensions that constitute creativity according toAmabile (Paletz and Peng, 2008). Additionally, meta-analyses of innovation and marketing studies indicate thatNPD processes and outcomes, where creativity is influ-ential, are geographically and culturally dependent(Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Kirca et al., 2005). Well-known research has not been conducted on creativity in across-national or comparative NPD context.

An alternative view presents itself when turning tocreativity studies outside NPD and marketing. Research-ers have been studying creativity from many vantagepoints. Creativity has been an interdisciplinary magnet,drawing interest from psychology, education, and arttheory among others (Runco and Robert, 1990;Sternberg, 1999). An emergent understanding is that cre-ativity is contextually situated and socially constructed.Culture as an environmental element has been pointed outas especially influential, impacting what creativity is, thevalue it holds, and how it is fostered (Csikszentmihalyi,1988; Lubart, 1990; Mannarelli, 2005). Western cul-tures for instance are said to emphasize creativity as(1) observable in a tangible product, which is then judgedby others; (2) as an enterprise embarked on by individualsfor self-realization and self-expression; and (3) as aprocess of breaking modalities to generate originalideas. Eastern cultures by contrast tend to see creativity as(1) less tangible, noting it can be a product or a personalquality akin to enlightenment; (2) as a collaborativeendeavor where self is indistinguishable from or second-ary to others; and (3) as an avenue of building upon andhonoring tradition rather than abandoning it (Lubart,1999; Montuori and Purser, 1997; Westwood and Low,2003).

Creativity researchers outside the NPD and marketingdisciplines warn of the dangers of assuming creativity isculturally detached. They observe that creativity as aconcept has been heavily promoted in the West, infusedwith the ideals of individualism and nonconformity(Montuori and Purser, 1997; Niu and Sternberg, 2002;Rudowicz and Yue, 2000). Accordingly, Edison, Michel-angelo, and other creative geniuses are said to laboralone, defying the past and known limits of art, science,and social convention. Such standards appear useful onlyin cultural isolation or exclusively within the Westerncontext.

For instance, a common Western stereotype is thatAsians are not creative. From a Western perspective,Asians are at best incrementalists who improve onexisting designs but rarely if ever birth radically newworks, whether technological or artistic (Gardner, 1997;Riquelme, 2002). However, studies show that Asians whocreate are guided by different principles, including self-discipline, conformity, moral goodness, and regard fortradition (Mannarelli, 2005; Niu and Kaufman, 2005). Anexample is the Japanese ceramics master who spendsmonths painstakingly producing one simple clay bowlthat humbly reflects the earth it comes from, keeping withthe centuries-long practices of raku making (a style ofceramics) where simplicity, imperfection, asymmetry,and restraint are valued (Keene, 1969). Western standardsof ceramics making generally favor complexity, perfec-tion, symmetry, and visual impact. Thus creativity in onecultural setting, such as the West, may not apply to cre-ativity in another, such as the East.

In light of the critical gap in current NPD and market-ing knowledge on how creativity affects innovation, andthe understanding outside those streams that creativity isculturally constructed, a multicultural, rather than mono-cultural, interpretation of creativity called cross-culturalcreativity is proposed. This may be the first such concep-tualization. Specifically, it refers to the ability to generatenew ideas in ways reflective of the surrounding culturalmilieu. In the next section, the concept is further devel-oped, in order to provide new insights on creativity forfirms engaged in global innovation projects, as well asbroaden the discourse on creativity in NPD research.Thereafter, the concepts utility is demonstrated bydescribing how cultural creativity leads to distinctiveapproaches in NPD, using the Japanese and U.S. settingsas illustrations.

A Conceptualization ofCross-Cultural Creativity

This new conceptualization accounts for different thoughequally valid modes of creativity. Because notions ofcreativity diverge from culture to culture, it is necessaryto avoid imposing one set of creativity ideals across all.Hence, a conceptualization of creativity that accounts forvariation is proposed. At the outset, it should be notedthat the concept is intentionally parsimonious, a hallmarkof useful theory. When buttressed against empirical evi-dence in future research, the concept may be revised toreflect greater complexity and range. The concept isadmittedly theoretical, and thus remains to be tested andvalidated. Nonetheless, as with all concepts initially, it is

112 J PROD INNOV MANAG E. A. ELLIOT AND C. NAKATA2013;30(S1):110125

based on ideas derived from existing works and insights.Uniquely, it brings together learning from art-aestheticsand innovation management. The approach is intentional,in order to create a new concept that would not likelyarise out of either discipline alone.

This conceptualization of creativity is drawn fromtheories of art-making by Burkhart (1960), Beittel(1964), and Beittel and Burkhart (1963). The field of artand aesthetics is looked to in order to derive insights oncreativity because artas process and productessentializes creativity. It is also the realm of art andaesthetics that actively pursues questions such as Whatis creativity? and How does creativity manifest?Burkhart (1960), Beittel (1964), and Beittel and Burkhart(1963) describe the core modes of art-making, which areconceptually extended to describe culturally rooted formsof creativity.

Beittel (1964), Burkhart (1960), and Beittel andBurkhart (1963) propose that art is produced via twopaths: spontaneous (S) and divergent (D). Both areoriginative ways of working to create art, involvinggoals and procedures (Beittel and Burkhart, 1963, p. 30).The first approach has problem solving as its goal,whereas the second has the objective of discovery. Interms of procedure, the S approach holds the problemconstant but varies the procedure until the solution sur-faces. Innovation occurs in the procedure, reflecting aprocess orientation. This approach also relies on intuitionas opposed to reasoning, flexibility in the use of tools andmaterials, and fluidity in the development of concepts.Resulting works are subtle in variation and organic innature. In contrast, the D approach varies the goal ratherthan the procedure. The process is controlled in order tosearch for overtly new solutions and thus reflects a dis-

covery orientation. The intuitivism of the S approach iscountered in the D route by rationalism. With rationalismcomes a precision in the development of concepts. Thestrategy leads to bold and structured, instead of subtle andorganic, outcomes. The S and D strategies are analogousto troubleshooting and inventing, respectively, with bothyielding equally original art.

These two paths are theorized to represent culturallyanchored modes of creativity: the S route is situated moreoften in Eastern and other non-Western cultures, whereasD creativity is more prevalent in the West. This is not tosay that the S mode is absent in the West or that the Dmode is nonexistent in the East, only that these aregeneral patterns in ways of thinking and doing (e.g.,Hofstede, 1990; House, Javidan, Hanges, and Dorfman,2002). The two modes are complementary, with neitherone superior nor inferior to the other: each exists and isjudged only on its own terms.1 Furthermore, studies showthat non-Western art focuses on implicit dimensions suchas intuitive ideas and open, natural, i.e., organic, forms(corresponding with the S route), whereas Western artfavors explicit qualities such as intellectual reasoning andvisible, structured forms (corresponding with the Dapproach) (e.g., Servomaa, 1997).

Spontaneous and Divergent Characteristics

The primary characteristics of each mode are now elabo-rated. The characteristics, which are interrelated withineach mode, are summarized in Table 1. The first charac-teristic is the adaptiveness of the S mode versus the dis-

1 While there may be other creativity paths, the two capture the keymodes. Future research can elaborate additional paths, which are likely tobe offshoots of these primary routes.

Table 1. Spontaneous (S) and Divergent (D) Creativity Modes: Chief Characteristics.Spontaneous (S) Mode Divergent (D) ModeAdaptiveness DisruptivenessAddresses creativity by making small changes, usually in process,

in order to solve a problem.Addresses creativity by making large leaps to achieve salience from

known solutions.Intuitiveness RationalityWork is done intuitively through use of instinctive yet insightful

choices to generate a product that is emotionally profound.Work is done through use of a conscious logic (not necessarily linear),

making the next most right feasible connection to generate a productwith intellectual appeal

Process-Oriented Results-OrientedThe problem is held constant and the procedure varied, with any

errors made in the process utilized to give room for newprocedures and resolutions; emphasis is on doing.

The procedure is held constant and the goals vary to achieve new formsand breakthroughs. The interest is in outcomes that are observablyfresh, with an undercurrent of pragmatism to ensure these ends.

Metaphorism LiteralismA preference for indirectness and symbolism, leading to a

product that is figurative or suggestive in natureA preference for translating ideas directly into the product such that the

products meaning, utility, or features is apparent


ruptiveness of the D path. Adaptiveness refers to makingsmall changes, usually in process, in order to solve aproblem. S creativity is adaptive in that it continuouslymodifies efforts in an orderly, skilled manner until a sig-nificant development is attained, usually leading to aproduct2 with nuanced perspectives. The goal is adjustingtechniques and materials to achieve originality. S creativ-ity attempts to blend concepts together in an interdepen-dent fashion to generate a seamlessly integrated whole(Beittel, 1964; Beittel and Burkhart, 1963). D creativityon the other hand is disruptive, which refers to makinglarge leaps to achieve salience from known solutions. Itfollows unconventional paths to yield a product of con-trast and distinction, or an observable break with the past(Beittel, 1964). D creativity attempts to form unique asso-ciations of disparate elements or ideas, resulting in aproduct of unexpected and dramatic vividness (Beittel,1964; Beittel and Burkhart, 1963).

These characteristics are illustrated by comparing aJapanese painting to an Italian painting as archetypes oftheir art traditions and representative of S and D modali-ties, respectively. The adaptive characteristic of the Japa-nese painting (Figure 1a) is seen in the fluid motion of thebrush strokes, which require skillful mastery of ink,water, and hand pressurehallmarks of traditional ZenBuddhist art. Adaptiveness is further manifested in mul-tiple perspectives of sky, mountain, mist, and forestcreated by the shaded tones applied in a layered manner.A holistic integration of the natural scene is achieved,where elements such as sky and ground are barely distinctfrom one another. The work, a careful synthesis of paperwith pigment, achieves a delicate view through kasure, aJapanese technique of displaying the white scratchytexture of the paper, melded with pigments, to createblurred images (Xu, Tang, Lau, and Pan, 2004). Incontrast, the Italian painting (Figure 1b) shows disrup-tive qualities of the D approach through exaggeratedhuman figures and striking scenery (Silverman, Winner,Rosensteig, and Gardner, 1975). A novel, immediatelyapparent design is achieved through bold paint strokesand vibrant color arrangements to generate visual andemotional drama. Contrasts are achieved through the useof shadows and illuminated figures and the unconven-tional juxtaposition of shapes, such as the soldiers arm infull stabbing motion above the gentle face of a protectivemother. Both paintings are works of high creativity,achieving ideals of beauty through different processesand standards.

2 The term product is used generally to refer to all manner of creativeoutput, including in art (e.g., sculpture), engineering (e.g., bridge design),business (e.g., a product), and science (e.g., a technology).

a

b

Figures 1. Japanese (Top) and Italian (Bottom) Paintings.(a) Scenery of Mountain/Amana Images/Getty Images.(b) Slaughter of the Innocents/Photodisc/Getty Images


The S and D modes exhibit other distinguishing char-acteristics. S creativity is process-oriented while D isresults-oriented (Beittel, 1964). Process-oriented is theinterest in varying the procedures while holding the goalsconstant. In this way, any errors are utilized en route togive room for new procedures. The emphasis is on doingrather than achieving, such that what matters is how theartist does the work, less so what is created at the end.The process, if done well, is expected to yield good art.The result is typically understated and layered in meaningand appearance (Beittel, 1964; Burkhart, 1960). By com-parison, D creativity is results-oriented, which refers tothe use of many, sometimes complex procedures that areheld constant to maintain control. What vary are the goalsto achieve new forms and breakthroughs, so the art isobservably fresh (Beittel, 1964). In a sense, there is anundercurrent of pragmatism because what matters isachieving something tangibly novel.

Also characterizing S creativity is that it is metaphoric,whereas D creativity is literal. The metaphoric quality inS creativity refers to a preference for symbolism, leadingto a product that is figurative or suggestive in nature. Inother words, the aim is to conjure loose associations andfeelings in the art observer. D creativity on the other handwith its literal quality centers on explicitness, such thatideas are directly translated into the product; the worksmeaning, utility, and features are more apparent; and theintention is to produce a particular thought or reactionfrom the observer (Beittel, 1964; Qualley, 1970). Further,S creativity is intuitive, which means a tendency towardinstinctive yet insightful choices to generate a productthat is emotionally profound. D creativity is by contrastrational, which refers to the selection of right, feasible,and reasoned choices, resulting in a product with intel-lectual appeal and detached precision.

The metaphoric, intuitive, and process-oriented quali-ties of the S mode are illustrated, in contrast to the literal,rational, and results-oriented qualities of the D modes,with Chinese (specifically southern Chinese) and Frenchgardens (Figure 2a and 2b), respectively. The two gardensagain represent cultural ideals.3

The metaphoric and intuitive characteristics are visiblein the Chinese gardens harmonious arrangement of ele-ments, which express the yin (feminine) and yang (mas-culine) forces of Taoist philosophy (Rutt, 1996). Each

element has a metaphoric meaning, and is carefullyplaced in relation to another to engage the senses andstimulate the imagination: a single rock represents amountain and a tree symbolizes a forest. As a visitorwalks through the garden, s/he notices few flowers, largeshapes, or bold colors. Rocks, shrubs, trees, and pebblepathways of muted tones and textures are used instead, sothat the visitor intuits small, nuanced delights. The gardenunfolds to the visitor in a process of gradual discoverywhile walking through it, such as gazing on a single fallenleaf or meditating on pond surface reflections. Theemphasis is on providing a slow satisfying experiencerather than immediate eye-grabbing impact.

By contrast, the French garden of Versailles exhibitsrational and literal characteristics through regularity andsymmetry. Hedges are clipped or carved into perfectshapes, and trees arranged carefully in rows and othercontours. There is a compelling rationality to the garden,often produced through the use of clear yet complexgeometric plots and paths. The garden is also literal ratherthan suggestive in that all elements reflect what they are:trees are trees, and shrubs are shrubs. They neverthelessconvey splendor through the stunning manipulation ofnature. Shrubs for instance are shaped not as they natu-rally appear but as superimposed geometric forms, suchas matrices, to arrest the eye and generate marvel.Flowers of intense and varied color are profusely grownand strategically placed for this purpose as well, accent-ing areas for dramatic effect. Importantly, the gardensentire design can be seen at one glance, as opposed to thegradual reveal of the Chinese garden. The aim is toachieve a sense of awe of what nature can be rather thantruly is (Keswick, 1978).

Cross-Cultural Creativity and NPDPractices: Japan and the United StatesIt is now posited how cross-cultural creativity affectsNPD practices, as illustrated by the Japanese and U.S.cultures. These two cultures were chosen to represent theS and D modes of creativity. It is important to observethat neither Japan nor the United States is likely to beuniformly of the S or D mode. The reason is that there areexceptions to cultural tendencies as elaborated in workson national culture (Hofstede, 1990). Nonetheless, cul-tural tendencies within countries and their ties to NPDapproaches are widely acknowledged and documented(Herbig and Jacobs, 1996; Hofstede, 1990; House et al.,2002; Nakata and Sivakumar, 1996).

It is proposed here that cross-cultural creativity shapesNPD practices. This relationship is elaborated by describ-

3 Throughout this paper, exemplars such as Chinese versus French areused to explicate the duality of creativity, which has predominantly beeninterpreted as a Western notion. As with all other culturally derived orculturally rooted concepts, ours relies initially on observable polaritiesbetween countries (e.g., Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1990; Triandis, 1994). Itremains for later empirical work to validate the modality or frequency of theS and D forms by country.


ing the characteristics of each mode based on the arts andaesthetics traditions of the two countries, and then linkingeach characteristic with a distinct NPD practice. Thewell-recognized NPD practices of strategy, structure,systems, shared values, and leadership style are focusedon cultural orientations (Johne and Snelson, 1988).Because of space constraints, the characteristics of thecreativity modes and how each influences a particularNPD practice are described rather than all possibleeffects. The creativityNPD linkages are summarized asresearch propositions (see Figure 3).

Cross-Cultural Creativity and NPD Strategy

S creativitys adaptiveness and NPD strategy. Adefining characteristic of S creativity is adaptiveness.This characteristic can be seen in Japanese arts adher-ence to the principle of wabi sabi, which translates intorustic and desolate beauty. This principle is centered onfinding beauty in imperfection and humbly accepting thenatural cycles of growth and decay (Saito, 1997). Inpursuit of wabi sabi, the artist constantly adapts to his/hermedium rather than imposes a will upon it, such that

a

b

Figures 2. Chinese (Top) and French (Bottom) Gardens. (a) Garden in Suzhou, China. (b) High Angle View of a Formal Gardenin Front of Palace of Versailles, Versailles, France/Glow Images/Getty Images


mistakes are not put aside but integrated into the work.In Japanese painting for example, the artist applies fluid,spontaneous, and irregular movements, adapting theprocess as s/he goes along; if a drop of paint or inkaccidentally falls from the brush, it is incorporated andregarded as giving additional energy to the piece(Bowie, 1952, p. 38).

The propensity toward adaptiveness may shape NPDstrategy, which refers to the specification of product andmarket goals to guide NPD activities and resource allo-cations (Johne and Snelson, 1988). The influence isobservable in the use of m-kansei in Japanese NPD.M-kansei is the practice of producing core technologiesthat are adapted to create multiple new products(Parthasarthy and Hammond, 2002; Tatsuno, 1989). Theheart of this approach is idea recycling (sairiyo), orfinding new uses for existing ideas. An example isCanons development of an infrared eye-reading technol-ogy for automatic lens focusing. This technology wasembedded in a series of new cameras that varied instyling and pricing to appeal to a wide range of custom-ers, from lower- to higher-end segments. While the resultis 30 new camera models, each distinctive in outwardappearance, the underlying technology is the same.

D creativitys disruptiveness and NPD strategy.Contrary to adaptiveness, the D mode displays disrup-tiveness, a break with the past or a reference point to birththe new. A signature of art and aesthetics in the UnitedStates is disruptiveness. In the aptly titled book Revolu-tion and Tradition in American Art, art critic Baur (1967,p. 123) asserts that American art throughout its historyconveys a revolt against circumstances. In other words,artists attempt to defy established norms and/or insertreadily visible distinctions in their work. Paintings byPeter Blume, Mark Rothko, and Georgia OKeefe forinstance make use of contrasting colors and figures aswell as provocative images. As illustrated by OKeefespainting White Shell with Red, the roses swirl of darkrich red stands in stark contradiction to the white-coloredshell, lending a hyperreality to two elements not typicallypaired as subjects.

The search for disruptiveness may affect NPD strat-egy, as manifested by the emphasis in U.S. firms on largeinnovation leaps (Rosenberg and Steinmueller, 1988). Assuggested by Mansfield (1988), U.S. companies valueand pursue disruptiveness by identifying and developingtechnologies that support the creation of radically newproducts. Among notable technologies is cellular tele-

Figure 3. Cross-Cultural Creativity and NPD Practices


phony, which AT&T developed into a prototype mobilephone, leading later to the smart phone (King and West,2002). Disruptiveness in NPD strategy can also be seen inthe large emphasis on basic research. Basic research isaimed at producing fundamental gains in scientificknowledge that are later commercially applied; whilecostly and risky, it can yield large returns (Sanchez,1996). U.S. firms have traditionally pursued and suc-ceeded in basic research, as attested by their status asthe worlds leading patent holder for much of thelast century. Microsoft reaped such rewards when itsbasic research on three-dimensional space computergraphics allowed it to enter the game console business byintroducing the popular X-box product (Lohr, 2009).

P1a: S creativitys adaptiveness leads to preference foran incremental, continuous improvement NPD strategy.

P1b: D creativitys disruptiveness leads to preference fora radical, episodic, breakthrough NPD strategy.

Cross-Cultural Creativity and NPD Structure

S creativitys intuitiveness and NPD structure. Asecond characteristic of S creativity is intuitiveness. Anessential aim of Japanese art is producing feelings andconnections. Reflecting this thrust is mono no aware,which is the aesthetic sensibility to the inner vitality ormood of things, particularly in nature (Sasaki, 2001). Inmoments of mono no aware, there is a heightened aware-ness of the ephemeralness of beauty and life; this expe-rience is not so much a conscious recognition as a feltpoignancy. An example of mono no aware is cherryblossom viewing, a favorite Japanese past time and cul-tural rite. The experience conjures for viewers a deep-felt,unspoken connection to nature and fellow companions; itevokes a sad exuberance because the frail blossoms lastuntil the first harsh rain or strong wind (Keene, 1969;Young and Young, 2006).

Intuitiveness perhaps shapes Japanese NPD, specifi-cally in terms of the structures used. NPD structures aredefined as aspects of the organization chart that supportNPD activities (Johne and Snelson, 1988). Intuitivenessmay guide Japanese firms toward structures that engenderheart-felt ties, commitment, and collaboration amongparticipants, consistent with societal values of empathyand interdependence (Lebra, 1976). For innovationendeavors, Japanese companies appear to favor structuresthat foster close networking among workers and lastingcommitment to the firm, such as through decentralizedunits that facilitate creative thinking and actions(Kodama, 2004; Ouchi, 1980; Sullivan and Nonaka,

1986). By using such approaches, it is believed that thewill and enthusiasm to overcome barriers and innovateare strengthened, and spontaneous collaboration occurswithout resorting to formal policies and procedures(Orihata and Watanabe, 2000).

D creativitys rationality and NPD structure. Ratio-nality is a defining characteristic of D creativity. It involvesthe selection of right, feasible, and reasoned choices togenerate a product with detached precision and intellec-tual appeal. This trait is exhibited in American paintingfrom earlier to more recent times. Art historians noted thatpainters in the 18th century drew their figures with aprodigious care, conscientiously and with a certain dryprecision . . . the prevailing tone is . . . cold . . . with thecalm, literal, depersonalized sort of report from nature(Cortissoz, 1923, p. 110). The tendency toward precisionwas carried over into 19th century art through realisticlandscape, still life, and figure paintings (Baur, 1967,p. 104). In the next century, the American style shiftedaway from realism but maintained a controlled designlogic. The result is art that is cool and detached (Cahill,1936, p. 33).AndyWarhols famous Campbell Soup series,with precise repeated images of the soup can painted in acommercial, nonpainterly style, is a case in point.

Rationality may impact NPD structure in severalways. One way is through emphasis on tasks over rela-tionships, a distinctive trait of U.S. NPD. In U.S. firms,complex NPD routines are broken down systematicallyinto well-circumscribed tasks based on the principles ofdivision of labor, work standardization, and group syn-chronization (Howell and Higgins, 1990). Work pro-cesses are explicated and supported by long flowcharts ofactivities, resources, and schedules as projects evolve(Aoki, 1986). This task-centered, project-managementtack enables efficient allocation of always limitedresources (Howell and Higgins, 1990).

The second way rationality potentially affects theNPD structure is via a preference for formal structuresand rewards. Mintzberg (1979) observed that U.S. firmsrely on prescribed roles, responsibilities, and relation-ships among workers. Each employee is rewarded forperforming his (her) duties according to a specifiedusually writtenjob description and within a strictreporting bureaucracy. For instance, Hewlett-Packard atone time developed specific procedures for how the top5% of engineers were to be recognized and motivatedas professional elites (Leonard-Barton, 1992, p. 118).Such explicit and institutionalized structures reduce con-fusion, direct actions, and coordinate the myriad NPDtasks and participants.


P2a: S creativitys intuitiveness leads to a preference forrelationally centered, informal NPD structures.P2b: D creativitys rationality leads to a preference fortask-centered, formal NPD structures.

Cross-Cultural Creativity and NPD Systems

S creativitys process orientation and NPD systems.Along with adaptiveness and intuitiveness, S creativityis process oriented. Japanese art emphasizes processthrough geido, or a way. Flower arrangement (kado),theater (Noh), tea ceremony (sado), pottery (yakimono),and all other Japanese arts have unique, time-honoredprocedures, which constitute the art as much as thefinished work. This emphasis means that disciplinedpractice is required to reach a state of mastery andenlightenment, if it is reached at all. In theater, theachievement is something rare, that is attained only after. . . decades of dedicated practice of the art (Rimer andMasakazu, 1984, p. 73). Similarly, the martial arts ofarchery and sword drawing demand endless repetition ofa handful of kata, or forms, under the firm eye of ateacher. Practice not only enables mastery of techniquebut also builds character and restraint, bridling uncomelyself-expression (Singleton, 1998).

We posit that the process orientation of S creativityaffects Japanese innovation in terms of NPD systems,which are procedures that guide and support NPD activi-ties and tasks (Johne and Snelson, 1988). The processemphasis is noticeable in how Japanese companies adoptNPD systems where the doing of innovation work, witheach phase generating learning, is valued as much as theresults of the innovation enterprise, or final product.These systems require NPD workers to do more variedtasks, do tasks cyclically, and do tasks differently toproblem solve, even if the time and resources expendedare greater than in tightly bound, goal-driven approach.The assumption is that if the process is correct and donewell, a good outcome follows.

Given this process focus, Japanese firms gravitatetoward two interrelated features in their NPD systems:concurrent and iterative phase work. Both features lead tomore open-ended yet recurring innovation activities thanin Taylorist or Fordist systems prevalent outside of Japan(Gjerding, 2010; Nonaka, 2007). Concurrent, or overlap-ping, phases allow the discovery and use of emergentlearning where and when that learning is most valuable.Japanese NPD also repeats tasks; the built-in redundan-cies appear wasteful but in practice permit faster, fixable,and less costly product improvements than waiting untilthe end (Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Powell, 1995).

D creativitys results orientation and NPD systems.In contrast to a primacy on process, D creativity is atten-tive to results. The results orientation of D creativity ispropelled by a pragmatism that aims for overt outcomes(Beittel, 1964). Art made in the United States has beenobserved to differ from work originating in Europe by itsincorporation of the practical. Black (1971, p. 7) in herbook, What is American in American Art?, quotes Alexisde Toqueville, the famous 19th century observer ofAmerican culture, who insightfully pointed out thatAmericans habitually prefer the useful to the beautiful,and they will require the beautiful shall be useful. Blackconcludes that not much has changed since the 19thcentury in that the Americans, stemming from their prag-matism, expect art to provide something of obviousvalue.

Concomitant with this underlying pragmatism and inkeeping with a results orientation, U.S. artists tend towardovert styles. Hunter (1973, p. 143) in his tome on Ameri-can 20th century art concludes that . . . brilliant color andviolent handling became for a time identifying trademarksof American painting. The advantage of an overt style isthat it not only conveys the artists vision of the world, butalso provokes a strong reaction in viewers. Specificexamples include the forceful, raw immediacy of femalepaintings by William De Kooning, and the monumen-talism of river murals by Craig McPherson. All marry abold vision with masterful technique, leaving an indelibleimpression upon the viewer. Reactions can range fromloathing and disgust to fear and awe toward these pieces.

Consequently, it is theorized here that the results ori-entation shapes U.S. NPD systems, as evidenced by thepractical and results-driven Stage-Gate4 NPD systemsthat the vast majority of U.S. firms embrace (Barczak,Griffin, and Kahn, 2003). In Stage-Gate, successfulnew products result from arranging development tasksinto phases, with each activity and stage building on theprior in a formal sequence. Thus, idea generation leads toconcept screening, which moves into marketing research,followed by product design and prototyping, and endingin market testing and launch. To ensure a successful newproduct at the end of the chain, results at each step aremeasured against explicit goals and standards, i.e.,benchmarks. The use of metrics enables immediateassessment and go-no go or live-kill decisions onprojects (Sethi and Iqbal, 2008). By eliminating lowpotential products early and moving forward only on highpotential ones, the system ensures progress.

4 Stage-Gate is registered trademark of the Product Development Insti-tute, Inc.


P3a: S creativitys process orientation leads to a prefer-ence for concurrent, iterative NPD systems.P3b: D creativitys results orientation leads to a prefer-ence for Stage-Gate, linear NPD systems.

Cross-Cultural Creativity and NPD Shared Valuesand Leadership Style

S creativitys metaphorism and NPD values and lead-ership style. The last characteristic of S creativity ismetaphorism, or a preference for indirectness and sym-bolism. The Japanese aesthetic of yugen best captures thispreference. Yugen paradoxically means resistance towardbeing clearly discerned. According to yugen, it is moresublime and poetic to be suggestive. Thus, a mountain ispartially drawn in an ink painting so that the viewer canimagine the parts that are missing and on each viewingexperience something new. Along with this indirectnessis symbolism. Bowie (1952, p. 79) comments that Japa-nese artists are not bound to the literal representation ofthings seen. They have a canon called esarogato, whichmeans literally an invented picture, or a picture intowhich certain fictions are painted. Symbolism is a keyfeature of Japanese gardens. Gravel for instance is rakedanew each day in a pattern to represent streams and theirconstantly changing nature. The garden is intended tosuggest the inner essence of things, and subordinatereason to perception and mood.

The metaphorism of S creativity may be linked to twoJapanese NPD practices: shared values, which constitutethe organizational culture surrounding innovation activi-ties, and leadership style, which is used to direct theseactivities (Johne and Snelson, 1988). Generally, Japanesefirms have been observed to apply metaphors and meta-phorical thinking in innovation projects, contrasting withthe penchant for fact and objectivity in U.S. companies(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). With respect to organiza-tional values or culture, Japanese firms have appliedmetaphors to communicate NPD team roles, such as theartist who assists to convert images into new productideas, and the antique dealer who recycles old ideas fornew application (Tatsuno, 1989). Furthermore, each layerof workers is valued and connected to others in a nurtur-ing symbiosis. The culture is implicit in that the values ofmutual respect and interdependence are not articulatedbut implied in relationships and roles (Nonaka, 1991).

The emphasis on metaphors also surfaces in the typeof leadership favored in Japanese NPD. Japanese firmslean toward paternalistic styles in that leaders are holis-tically concerned with the socialization, education, andwelfare of employees (Friedlander, 1983), and root their

identities in these relationships (who I am to others)rather than personal achievement (what I have done).Japanese leaders also take their management cues frommetaphorical relationships such as teacherpupil andmasterapprentice (sempai-kohai) (Pascale and Athos,1981).

D creativitys literalism and NPD values andleadership style. In comparison to S creativitysmetaphorism, D creativity focuses on literalism. Underliteralism, ideas are clearly and directly translated into thework (Beittel, 1964). This explicitness contrasts with theveiled quality of S creativity where allusion is preferred.U.S. art reflects literalism. Goodrich (1971, p. 16) com-ments that the naturalistic tradition that held sway wellinto the 20th century in American artrepresented forexample by the urban realism of Thomas Eakins sculp-tures, paintings, and photographyshared common ele-ments: adherence to facts, directness of vision, clarity,solidarity. Eakins famous painting The Gross Clinicdepicts a surgical anatomy class in action with a muscularrealism and directness of vision (Simpson, 2001, p. 32).More recently, American art has embraced abstract styleswithout completely abandoning realism and naturalism.Expressionism and minimalism are just some of theseabstract styles. They share with naturalism an unfilteredvision, voice, or idea. As an example, Maya Lin designedthe Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C. bycutting diagonal slits into the ground and fitting blackmarble slabs into them with the engraved name of eachfallen soldier. The somber design powerfully conveys thelingering and dehumanizing scar of war, and won acco-lades for its radical and moving departure from previouswar memorials (Mock, 1995).

The literalism of D creativity possibly influences NPDshared values and leadership style in the U.S. context.This connection can be observed in the preference forexplicit organizational cultures and the transactionalleadership style in U.S. firms. Explicit organizational cul-tures are ones where the values girding the organizationare spelled out and promulgated. Often such cultureshave formal mission statements, so that workers aredirected in day-to-day tasks by a larger purpose. Missionsare translated into strategic and tactical goals, so thateveryone knows what has to be accomplished when bywhom. The focus on literalism is also evident by the useof transactional leadership. The role of leaders is toprovide specific performance-driven goals and assignworkers personal responsibility for achieving them(Rohlen, 1989). The relationship between managers andworkers is clearly contractual: leaders reward workers


when they succeed, and punish them when they fail.General Electric used this leadership mode to ensure asteady output of new products in the electronics sector(Abetti, 2006).

P4a: S creativitys metaphorism leads to a preference foran implicit organizational culture and paternalistic lead-ership style in NPD.

P4b: Ds creativitys literalism leads to a preference foran explicit organizational culture and transactionalleadership style in NPD.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to understand the influenceof creativity on NPD practices in a cross-cultural orglobal context. This aim was pursued by first developinga conceptualization of creativity that is culturally reflec-tive called cross-cultural creativity. Because creativity isnow recognized as socially dependent (Lubart, 1999;Westwood and Low, 2003), the resulting conceptualiza-tion articulates how creativity varies across cultures.Drawing on insights about creativity from the field of artand aesthetics (e.g., Beittel and Burkhart, 1963), theconcept proposes creativity follows two paths: spontane-ous (S) and divergent (D). The S path is a problem-solving approach relying on intuition, flexibility, andfluidity to produce subtle, organic outcomes. In contrast,the D route is a discovery approach, relying on intellec-tualism, control, and precision, leading to bold, structuredoutcomes.

Next in this study, the concept was used to describehow cross-cultural creativity is tied to differingapproaches to NPD, with the Japanese and U.S. settingsas exemplars. Based on the extant Japanese and U.S.NPD literature, it was theorized how these modes alterthe key NPD practices of strategy, structure, systems, andshared values and leadership style. These findings weresummarized as research propositions, which address thestudy aim of understanding how creativity shapes NPD ina global or cross-cultural context.

Managerial Implications

For managers, these findings have several implications.One implication is that cultural sensitivity is required tomanage the NPD process for optimal outcomes. Previousstudies, including meta-analyses, have empirically dem-onstrated that culture affects the innovation enterprise(e.g., Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Song and Parry,1997b). This study is perhaps the first to propose the more

specific linkage between culturally based creativity andthe development of new products. A new bimodal frame-work for creativity is posited that accounts for currentunderstanding that creativity is socially construed andfollows differing patterns, contrasting between Westernand non-Western cultures (Lubart, 1999; Niu andKaufman, 2005; Paletz and Peng, 2008).

In terms of greater cultural sensitivity, this study sug-gests firms harness creativity for global innovation pur-poses employing a variety of managerial approaches. Thereason is that what is interpreted as new, useful, good,artistic, even beautiful is intrinsically tied to the culturethat produces it. The approach selected and used has toaccount for distinctions not only in the new product fea-tures desired, but also in terms of the strategy, structure,systems, values, and leadership style applied to the newproduct project.

Most obviously, the solution is to match the creativityconcept and NPD practices with the appropriate culture.Within an Eastern or non-Western setting, those wouldmore likely be the S concept and NPD practices such asa more incremental strategy, relational informal structure,and iterative development process. Conversely, within aWestern environment, the D concept should be embraced,along with practices such as a more radical strategy, task-centered formal structure, and a linear developmentsequence. Landing on the right mode becomes particu-larly challenging when multiple cultures are involved increating a new product, as is increasingly the case inglobal NPD teams.

This recognition leads to the second managerial impli-cation and less obvious solution, namely intentionallyseeking divergent creativity modes and selecting aspectsof the two to develop a third way for NPD. A trulymultinational company with personnel and marketsaround the world may find it beneficial to combineaspects of the S and D modes to construct new NPDpractices that draw on complementary strengths ormitigate different weaknesses. An example of this ismodifying Stage-Gate by allowing flexibly cyclingback through stages to capitalize on learning and errorsalong the way (Cooper, 2008; Sethi and Iqbal, 2008).Such modified forms bridge the two worlds of creativity,no longer positioning them as dichotomous, either-orchoices.

Another way to tap into both creative modes is to makeadjustments in NPD practices on a project basis. Teamsassigned to NPD projects can shift between the two ori-entations as a function of the needs of the project. Thus,Project A is guided using the S creativity mode and prac-tices and Project B by the D perspective and approaches.


This is more possible if the teams are themselves multi-cultural, and leaders are chosen according to the creativ-ity orientation desired. Project A in the above case couldbe spearheaded by the member from China, and Project Bby the French member. Over time, the result would be acreative fertility: an ability to appreciate different culturalpoints of view and possibilities so that the most valuablepath can be selected, resulting in market appropriate newproducts. This flexibility in application of creativity ori-entations is especially relevant for firms with large globalportfolios of NPD projects.

A third path is one that rests on the emergent pattern ofmultinational firms leveraging the cultural skills of whatare known as biculturals, or individuals who have deepfamiliarity with more than one culture because of variedlife experiences and/or being born into a multiculturalfamily. A person who is, say, a child of a Vietnamesemother and American father, and has lived for a time inboth countries, is able to switch back and forth betweenthe two cultural frames. Firms are intentionally seekingbicultural staff because they offer the unique ability toappreciate fully and function adaptively in two or morecultural worlds (Brannen, 2009; Briley, 2009). In NPDactivities, biculturals may be employed specifically fortheir cultural knowledge, including tapping into multiplecreativity forms.

Research Implications

While the cross-cultural creativity concept presented hereis intended to be descriptive of many cultures, it wasexamined hypothetically in relation to two, the Japaneseand U.S. Future work is needed to understand the appli-cability of the creativity concept to other cultures. Fur-thermore, Western or Eastern cultures are not entirelyhomogenous because of subcultures within them. Forinstance, the national culture of India is composed of over20 subcultures and languages. As has long been under-stood, national culture constructs are large social aggre-gates not descriptive of all social units (Hofstede, 1990).Therefore, a future step is exploring to what degree andways the new creativity concept encompasses smaller,lower level social units. Findings can be used to expandthe concept for other levels of social analysis.

It is acknowledged that what is presented here is asimplified picture of creativity, culture, and NPD fortheoretical purposes, done so to explicate and highlighttheir linkages. However, organizations are complex enti-ties, residing within dynamic and multifaceted environ-ments. Studies in the future can investigate conditionsand factors likely to impact elements of this study. For

instance, transculturea force and sphere transcendingthe borders of ethnic, national, racial, and religiousculturesmay alter the emphases of a creativity mode(Epstein, 2009). Studies conducted on transculture mayhelp to identify important contingencies in the creativityNPD relationship.

Along with such macro factors, individual- and group-level variables can be studied for influence on creativityand innovation efforts. Creativity has been studied exten-sively as an individual psychological construct (e.g.,Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). It would be worthwhileresearching the influence of individual creativity, perhapsas a moderator or mediator of cross-cultural creativity, onNPD processes and outcomes. Relatedly, group-leveleffects would be interesting to understand. Previousresearch has pointed to group- or team-level factors suchas demographic diversity enhancing creativity undercertain conditions (Milliken, Bartel, and Kurtzberg,2003). These factors may have curvilinear effects becauseexcessive diversity is deleterious, producing conflict andundermining creativity (De Luca and Atuahene-Gima,2007; White, Varadarajan, and Dacin, 2003).

Another line of inquiry is to investigate the shapingforce of culture on creativity. The proposed concept inthis study incorporates both constructs into a single onecalled cross-cultural creativity, but it may be interestingto see if culture as a separate entity impacts creativity.Among culture paradigms that could be studied in rela-tion to creativity, the most obvious is Hofstedes nationalculture dimensions (1990); however, others that capturescultures more fluid naturequalities increasingly recog-nized in a more interdependent and globalizing worldinclude Brileys dynamic view of culture (2009) and Liuand Dales shared cultural cognitions (2009).

The next most evident step is empiricization of thecross-cultural creativity concept and NPD practicespropositions. While surveys have been typicallyemployed for cross-cultural marketing and innovationstudies, other methods can be fruitfully applied, particu-larly ethnographic, qualitative methods. As noted byClark (1990) in his review of the literature, qualitativetools can yield theoretical developments on critical globalmarketing issues.

In this study, a new culturally anchored creativity con-ceptualization is developed and applied to NPD.Although empirical research is needed before definitiveconclusions can be drawn, the concept helps us to under-stand that creativity is culturally attached and impactsinnovation practices. In this regard, a gap in the NPD andmarketing literatures is addressed, literatures which haveby and large assumed creativity is culturally neutral and


thus affects NPD in uniform ways regardless of geogra-phy (Amabile, 1988). This interpretation is less useful fortodays global new product efforts, in which products areconceived and designed by persons in places far morevaried than in the past. The hope is to have delineated anew and fertile area of knowledge, triggering criticaldiscourse in innovation.

ReferencesAbetti, P. A. 2006. Case study: Jack Welchs creative revolutionary trans-

formation of general electric and the Thermidorean reaction (1981-2004). Creativity and Innovation Management 15 (1): 7484.

Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: A componentialconceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45(August): 35776.

Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations.In Research in organizational behavior, ed. B. M. Staw and L.Cummings, 12367. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.Ancona, D. G. 1987. Groups in organization: Extending laboratory models.

In Annual review of personality and social psychology: Group pro-cesses and intergroup processes, ed. C. Hendrick, 20731. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Andrews, J., and D. C. Smith. 1996. In search of the marketing imagination:Factors affecting the creativity of marketing programs for the matureproducts. Journal of Marketing Research 33: 17487.

Aoki, M. 1986. Horizontal vs. vertical information structure of the firm.American Economic Review 75: 171983.

Barczak, G., A. Griffin, and K. B. Kahn. 2003. Perspective: Trends anddrivers of success in NPD practices: Results of 2003 PDMA bestpractices study. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26: 323.

Baur, J. I. 1967. Revolution and tradition in modern American art. NewYork: F. A. Praeger.

Beittel, K. R. 1964. On the relationships between art and general creativity:A biased history and projection of the partial conquest. School Review72: 27288.

Beittel, K. R., and R. C. Burkhart. 1963. Strategies of spontaneous, diver-gent and academic art students. Studies in Art Education 5 (Autumn):2041.

Black, M. 1971. What is American in American art? New York: M.Knoedler & Co.

Bowie, H. P. 1952. On the laws of Japanese painting. New York: DoverPublications.

Brannen, M. 2009. Culture in context: New theorizing for todays complexcultural organizations. In Beyond Hofstede: Culture frameworks forglobal marketing and management, ed. C. Nakata, 81100. London:Palgrave-Macmillan.

Briley, D. 2009. Cultural influence on consumer motivations: Adynamic view. In Beyond Hofstede: Culture frameworks for globalmarketing and management, ed. C. Nakata, 181200. London:Palgrave-Macmillan.

Burkhart, R. C. 1960. The creativity-personality continuum based on spon-taneity and deliberateness in art. Studies in Art Education 2 (Fall):4365.

Business Week. 2008. 25 most innovative companies: Smart ideas for toughtimes. Business Week, 4081, p. 61.

Cahill, H. 1936. New horizons in American art. New York: The Museum ofModern Art.

Clark, T. 1990. International marketing and national character: A reviewand proposal for an integrative theory. Journal of Marketing 67: 12369.

Cooper, R. G. 2008. The Stage-Gate idea-to-launch process update,whats new, and nextgen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Man-agement 25 (3): 21332.

Cortissoz, R. 1923. American artists. New York: C. Scribners Sons.Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1988. The flow experience and human psychology. In

Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness,ed. M. Csikszentmihalyi and I. S. Csikszentmihalyi, 1535. New York:University of Cambridge Press.

De Luca, L. M., and K. Atuahene-Gima. 2007. Market knowledge dimen-sions and cross-functional collaboration: Examining the differentroutes to product innovation performance. Journal of Marketing 71(January): 95112.

Epstein, M. 2009. Transculture: A broad way between globalism and mul-ticulturalism. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 68(January): 32851.

Friedlander, F. 1983. Patterns of individual and organizational learning.In The executive mind: New insights on managerial thought andaction, ed. S. Shrivastava and Associates. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gardner, H. 1997. Extraordinary minds: Portraits of 4 exceptional indi-viduals and an examination of our own extraordinariness. New York:Basic Books.

Gjerding, A. N. 2010. Work organization and the innovation designdilemma. In National systems of innovation, ed. B. Luvall, 99118.London: Anthem Press.

Goodrich, L. 1971. Introduction. In What is American art?, ed. M. Black,16. New York: M. Knoedler & Company.

Griffith-Hemans, J., and R. Grover. 2006. Setting the stage for creative newproducts: Investigating the idea fruition process. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science 34 (1): 2739.

Hall, E. T. 1976. Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.Henard, D. H., and D. M. Szymanski. 2001. Why some new products are

more successful than others. Journal of Marketing Research 38:(August): 36275.

Herbig, P., and L. Jacobs. 1996. Creative problem-solving styles in the USAand Japan. International Marketing Review 13 (2): 6371.

Hofstede, G. 1990. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.London: McGraw-Hill.

House, R., M. Javidan, P. Hanges, and P. Dorfman. 2002. Understandingcultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduc-tion to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business 37 (1): 310.

Howell, J. M., and C. A. Higgins. 1990. Champions of technological inno-vation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 31741.

Hunter, S. 1973. American art of the 20th century. New York: H. N.Abrams.

Im, S., and J. P. Workman. 2004. Market orientation, creativity, and newproduct performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing68: (April): 11432.

Johne, A. F., and P. A. Snelson. 1988. Success factors in product innovation:A selective review of the literature. Journal of Product InnovationManagement 5: 11428.

Keene, D. 1969. Japanese aesthetics. Philosophy East and West 19 (3):29306.

Keswick, M. 1978. The Chinese garden: History, art and architecture.Hong Kong: Rizzolli.

King, J. L., and J. West. 2002. Ma Bells orphan: U.S. cellular telephony,1947-1996. Telecommunications Policy 26 (3): 189203.

Kirca, A. H., S. Jayachandran, and W. O. Bearden. 2005. Market orienta-tion: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents andimpact on performance. Journal of Marketing 69 (April): 2441.

Kodama, M. 2004. Business innovation through strategic community cre-ation: A case study of multimedia business field in Japan. Journal ofBusiness Engineering and Technology Management 21 (September):21535.


Lebra, T. S. 1976. Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu: University ofHawaii Press.

Leenders, R. T. A. J., J. M. L. V. Engelen, and J. Kratzer. 2007. Systematicdesign methods and the creative performance of new product teams: Dothey contradict or complement each other? Journal of Product Innova-tion and Management 24: 16679.

Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradoxin managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal13 (Summer): 11125.

Liu, L. A., and C. Dale. 2009. Using mental models to study cross-culturalinteractions. In Beyond Hofstede: Culture frameworks for globalmarketing and management, ed. C. Nakata, 22246. London:Palgrave-Macmillan.

Lohr, S. 2009. Smartphone rises fast from gadget to necessity. New YorkTimes Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/technology/10phone.html.

Lubart, T. I. 1990. Creativity and cross-cultural variation. InternationalJournal of Psychology 25: 3959.

Lubart, T. I. 1999. Creativity across cultures. In Handbook of creativity, ed.R. J. Sternberg, 33950. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mannarelli, T. 2005. New visions of Asian management in the 21st century:A call for creativity. Paper presented at the Academyof Management Meetings, August, Honolulu, Asian Academy ofManagement Professional Development Workshop Project RoundtableDiscussion.

Mansfield, E. 1988. Industrial innovation in Japan and the United States.Science 30 (September): 176974.

Milliken, F. J., C. A. Bartel, and T. Kurtzberg. 2003. Diversity and creativityin work groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitiveprocesses that link diversity and performance. In Group creativity, ed.P. Paulus and B. Nijstad, 3262. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mintzberg, H. 1979. An emerging strategy of direct research. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly Qualitative Methodology, 24 (December):58289.

Mock, F. L. 1995. Maya lin: A strong clear vision. Santa Monica, CA:Sanders and Mock/American Film Foundation.

Montuori, A., and R. Purser. 1997. Social creativity: The challenge ofcomplexity. Pluriverso 1 (2): 7888.

Moorman, C., and A. S. Miner. 1997. The impact of organizational memoryon new product performance and creativity. Journal of MarketingResearch 34 (February): 91106.

Nakata, C., and K. Sivakumar. 1996. National culture and new productdevelopment: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing 60 (1):6172.

Niu, W., and J. Kaufman. 2005. Creativity in troubled times: Factors asso-ciated with recognitions of Chinese literary creativity in the 20thcentury. Journal of Creative Behavior 39 (1): 5767.

Niu, W., and R. J. Sternberg. 2002. Contemporary studies on the concept ofcreativity: The East and the West. Journal of Creative Behavior 36:26988.

Nonaka, I. 1991. The knowledge-creating company. Harvard BusinessReview: 96104.

Nonaka, I., and N. Konno. 1998. The concept of Ba: Building a founda-tion for knowledge creation. Californian Management Review 40:115.

Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge creating company.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I. R. 2007. Do firms differ? The theory of the knowledge creatingfirm. In Knowledge creation and management, ed. K. I. Ichiro andI. Nonaka, 1331. London: Oxford University Press.

Orihata, M., and C. Watanabe. 2000. Evolutionary dynamics of productinnovation: The case of consumer electronics. Technovation 20 (8):43749.

Ouchi, W. G. 1980. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. AdministrativeScience Quarterly 25: 12941.

Paletz, S. B. F., and K. Peng. 2008. Implicit theories of creativity acrosscultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 39 (3): 286302.

Parthasarthy, R., and J. Hammond. 2002. Product innovation input andoutcome: Moderating effects of the innovation process. Journal ofEngineering and Technology Management 19: 7591.

Pascale, R. T., and A. G. Athos. 1981. The art of Japanese management.New York: Simon and Schuster.

Powell, T. 1995. Total quality management as competitive advantage: Areview and empirical study. Strategic Management Journal 16(January): 1537.

Qualley, C. A. 1970. A comparison of spontaneous and divergent strate-gies to historical analyses of style. Studies in Art Education 12 (1):1724.

Rimer, J. T., and Y. Masakazu. 1984. On the art of the Noh drama: Themajor treatises of Zeami. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Riquelme, H. 2002. Creative imagery in the East and West. CreativityResearch Journal 14: 28182.

Rogers, C. R. 1983. Freedom to learn for the 80s. Columbus, OH: CharlesE. Merrill.

Rohlen, T. P. 1989. Order in Japanese society: Attachment, authority, androutine. Journal of Japanese Studies 15: 540.

Rosenberg, N., and E. W. Steinmueller. 1988. Why are Americans suchpoor imitators? American Economic Review 78 (2): 22935.

Rudowicz, E., and X. Yue. 2000. Concepts of creativity: Similarities anddifferences among Mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwanese Chinese.Journal of Creative Behavior 34 (July): 17592.

Runco, M. A., and A. S. Robert, eds. 1990. Theories of creativity. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Rutt, R. 1996. The book of changes (Zhouyi): A Bronze Age document.Richmond, UK: Curzon Press.

Saito, Y. 1997. The Japanese aesthetics of imperfection and insufficiency.The Journal Of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 55 (4): 37785.

Sanchez, R. 1996. Strategic product creation: Managing new interactions oftechnology, markets, and organizations. European ManagementJournal 14 (2): 12139.

Sasaki, K. 2001. Style in Japanese aesthetics: Onishi,Yoshinori. In A historyof modern Japanese aesthetics, ed. M. Marra, 11540. Honolulu: Uni-versity of Hawaii Press.

Servomaa, S. 1997. Sounds of stone; Reflections in art. Proceedings of thePacific Rim Conference in Transcultural Aesthetics, University ofSydney, June 18-20.

Sethi, R., and Z. Iqbal. 2008. Stage-Gate controls, learning failure,and adverse effects on new products. Journal of Marketing 72 (1):11836.

Sethi, R., D. C. Smith, and C. W. Park. 2001. Cross-functional productdevelopment teams, creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumerproducts. Journal of Marketing Research 38 (February): 7385.

Silverman, J., E. Winner, A. Rosensteig, and H. Gardner. 1975. On trainingsensitivity to painting styles. Perception 4: 37384.

Simpson, M. 2001. Thomas Eakins. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum ofArt.

Singleton, J. 1998. Learning in likely places: Varieties of apprenticeship inJapan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Slater, P. 1991. A dream deferred. Boston, MA: Beacon.Song, X. M., and M. E. Parry. 1997a. The determinants of Japanese new

product successes. Journal of Marketing Research 34 (1): 6476.Song, X. M., and M. E. Parry. 1997b. A cross-national comparative study of

new product development processes: Japan and the United States.Journal of Marketing 61 (2): 118.


Song, X. M., J. Xie, and B. Dyer. 2000. Antecedents and consequences ofmarketing managers conflict handling behaviors. Journal of Marketing64: 5066.

Sternberg, R. J., ed. 1999. Handbook of creativity. New York: CambridgeUniversity.

Stewart, E. C., and J. M. Bennett. 1991. American cultural patterns. Dart-mouth: Intercultural Press.

Sullivan, J. J., and I. Nonaka. 1986. The application of organizationallearning theory to Japanese and American management. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 17: 12747.

Sundgren, M., and A. Styhre. 2007. Creativity and the fallacy of misplacedconcreteness in new drug development. European Journal of Innova-tion Management 10 (2): 21535.

Tatsuno, S. 1989. Created in Japan: From imitators to world class inno-vators. New York: Harper and Row.

Triandis, H. C. 1994. Culture and social behavior. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Tu, W. 2009. A multilevel investigation of factors influencing creativity inNPD teams. Journal of Industrial Marketing Management 28 (1): 11926.

Vissers, G., and B. Dankbaar. 2002. Creativity in multidisciplinary newproduct development teams. Creativity and Innovation Management 11(1): 3139.

Von Krogh, G., I. Nonaka, and A. Manfried. 2001. Making the most of yourcompanys knowledge: A strategic framework. Long Range Planning34 (4): 42139.

Westwood, R., and D. R. Low. 2003. The multicultural muse. InternationalJournal of Cross Cultural Management 3: 23559.

White, J. C., P. R. Varadarajan, and P. A. Dacin. 2003. Market situationinterpretation and response: The role of cognitive style, organizationalculture, and information use. Journal of Marketing 67 (3): 6379.

Xu, S., F. Tang, F. C. M. Lau, and Y. Pan. 2004. Virtual hairy brush forpainterly rendering. Graphical Models 66 (5): 263302.

Yadav, M. S. 2010. The decline of conceptual articles and implications forknowledge development. Journal of Marketing 74 (1): 119.

Young, D., and M. Young. 2006. Spontaneity in Japanese art and culture.Available at: http://japaneseaesthetics.com

Zhou, J., and J. M. George. 2003. Awakening employee creativity: The roleof leader emotional intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly 14: 54568.


cross-cultural creativity conceptualization and propositions for global new product development

Documents